Why is it essential? And why is this liberty?
People may disagree with you and tell that musicians must have the liberty to get money from their music through sales.
Can we really force them to give it for free? Music production cost a lot of money and involve a lot of persons to work on it. Musicians already have to do a lot of gigs to cover the cost of recording music. Even artists like Jeff Buckley had to work a lot to repay the studio.
It has nothing to do with music. The sharing of music is only a side-effect of free and private sharing of digital information in general.
There are a number of drawbacks with enabling private digital communications: It makes the sharing of copyrighted works possible without the possibility for law enforcement to intervene, it enables the spread of child pornography or other criminal and morally unjustifiable information, etc.
The thing is, that is a price that is worth paying, because the alternative is a complete loss of liberty. If the government can prevent you from sharing music, it can prevent you from sharing anything. This may not be a problem for you personally right now, but it is a huge problem for people living in North Korea or Syria, for example.
Besides this, it is not at all clear that private sharing of digital information is automatically detrimental to musicians. While it is easier to share music for free, it is also easier for the musicians themselves to reach out directly to their fans. Whereas it used to be the case that you needed a record deal signed with a major label to have anyone even hear your music, these days you can become a major star, making a comfortable living off your music without ever signing a contract with a major label.
>> "Besides this, it is not at all clear that private sharing of digital information is automatically detrimental to musicians."
Seems like this would be pretty easy to work out. Look at the amount of money musicians made 30 years ago and compare it with today.
>> "Whereas it used to be the case that you needed a record deal signed with a major label to have anyone even hear your music, these days you can become a major star, making a comfortable living off your music without ever signing a contract with a major label."
This needs to be proven. Show me some of these big stars. If I look through the top 100 albums or singles I doubt I'll find 5 that have done it without the help of a label.
"major star" may have been a bit strong, of course you won't make it onto the top 100 lists since those are completely controlled and owned by the major labels.
I totally agree that we do not know if it has effect on musicians. But I do not think we should ignore it and just move. We need to find solutions if it is bad for them before breaking the whole system down.
I don't agree. I think it is more important to ensure free and private communications for people in oppressive regimes today than it is to ensure steady incomes for full-time musicians. Something that has, frankly, never been the case in history, before or after digital sharing.
